Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Wikipedia

2007-03-31T22:18:27Z

Lilelu10: /* Daniel Brandt controversy */

Wikipedia

2007-03-31T22:18:07Z

Lilelu10: /* Essjay Scandal */

Wikipedia

2007-03-31T22:17:52Z

Lilelu10: /* Seigenthaler Hoax and Reaction of Wikipedia Editors */

'''Wikipedia''' is an online [[encyclopedia]] established by [[Jimbo Wales]] (with substantial help in the beginning from [[Larry Sanger]]) on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref>, including over 1,600,000 articles in the English version. [[Conservapedia]] uses the wiki program made popular by Wikipedia. Content on Wikipedia is free-content under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), and anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|[http://www.wikipedia.org Multilingual Wikipedia home page]]]

Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis Incorporated, a search portal funded by Jimbo Wales.<ref>The Bomis portal has been criticized as "pornographic"</ref> Then in 2003, Jimbo Wales created the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation with himself as board president, to oversee the day-to-day operation of Wikipedia.

==Essjay Scandal==
In January 2007, Wikipedia critic Daniel Brandt discovered that a prominent Wikipedia administrator, bureaucrat and arbitrator nicknamed Essjay has lied <ref>[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/essjay.html Essjay/Archive/52 recovered by Brandt for posterity]</ref> on Wikipedia and in phone interviews with ''The New Yorker'' magazine about his age, job, background, and academic credentials<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm</ref>. Essjay, who later identified himself as Ryan Jordan and who was an employee at Wikia Inc. funded by Jimbo Wales, had claimed to be a 40 year old homosexual, holding doctoral degrees in theology and canon law and is a tenured professor at a private university; but he was in fact a 24 years old community college dropout [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=22351] from Kentucky. This fraud was reported by ABC, BBC and many other major news organizations. Jimbo Wales upon learning of this incident, stated: "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it."<ref>http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact</ref>

The first public notice occured on Wikipedia Review, a critic's forum frequented by Brandt and several other prominent Wikipedians, including many who have been blocked from editing Wikipedia. Brandt pointed out as early as July 2006 [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=12701] that "something... doesn't add up" regarding Essjay's claim of being a college professor despite editing Wikipedia as much as 16 hours per day. One of the site's administrators posted on Jan. 11, 2007 regarding Essjay's hiring by Wikia after noticing that Jordan's "Essjay" account on Uncyclopedia (a Wikia-owned site) had been changed to include the "Staff" reference, normally given only to paid Wikia employees. The "Essjay" user page on Wikia had been posted, along with the name "Ryan Jordan," on Jan. 7, 2007 - with no explanation given for why Essjay would leave a tenured faculty position to work as a Community Manager for Wikia. The situation quickly became the subject of increasing speculation by the Wikipedia Review forum members, of whom Brandt was the most skeptical.

Later, the same administrator posted further details [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=20992] of discrepancies between Jordan's Wikia user page and his Wikipedia user page on January 19th, after Jordan added still more personal-background information to his Wikia user page that bore little similarity to the credentials he had claimed on Wikipedia since April of 2005.

==Daniel Brandt controversy==
The Daniel Brandt biographical entry was created by SlimVirgin on 28 September 2005 so that the subsection of criticism could be removed from the Chip Berlet mainspace biography. On two occasions, once prior and once after, SlimVirgin stated she did not consider Daniel Brandt a credible source. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554] In August 2005 SlimVirgin and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rangerdude Rangerdude] discussed the use of "scholarly" material cited to Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates (PRA) on the Roots of Anti-Semitism talk page and had this exchange:

:"PRA is not the kind of organization any of our guidelines is trying to stop us from using, and I'm certain of this because I've been involved in drafting a lot of the information about sources and original research....PRA is a research group and Berlet is a published journalist and author. ...WP:NOR#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication? says: ''"A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable". For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in a '''Socialist Workers' Party''' magazine to publish a statement about President Bush being gay."'' This clearly doesn't have in mind the type of research group Chip works for. You may find PRA extreme, but it's not a political or religious group, party, or movement.--SlimVirgin 07:12, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude only moments before debunked Berlet's scholarly credentials, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20212920&oldid=20187928] cited WP:RS on using extreme websites, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=prev&oldid=20246130] and then rejoined,
:"Curiously your example of the '''Socialist Worker's Party''' does little to help your case as Mr. Berlet's own biography proudly states that he has worked on behalf of this very same extremist group! --Rangerdude 07:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin then changed Official Wikipedia Reliable Sources Policy to make Berlet appear mainstream and not an extremist. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Workshop#Request_of_finding_for_ex_post_facto_policy_changes]

Next an old dormant dispute between Brandt and Berlet from a decade and half ago was reignited. The two worked together for many years, but had a falling out in 1991; Brandt was quoted as an anonymous critic from a ''FrontPage magazine.com'' citation in Berlet's wiki entry, with these words,

:“Reviewing one of Berlet’s screeds, one leftist writer mentions Berlet’s “crusade” against Progressives who stray from Berlet's ideological fever swamps by working with non-leftist groups. In a fascinating conclusion, the leftist commentator warns that Berlet “may try to undermine your work and isolate you.” [http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10352]

Berlet expressed displeasure at the criticism and publicly named the "leftist writer";
:This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt, who I criticized because he was urging people on the left to read the anti-Semitic ''Spotlight'' newspaper (at the time published by Holocaust denier Willis Carto.) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21]

Berlet wanted the criticism of him and his organization removed. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_Research_Associates#Fairness_and_Balance] On the same day the Daniel Brandt biography was created to cast Brandt and his organization as extremist using a guilt by association smear of being aligned with Holocaust denial. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Information_Research#_note-0] Who was the source of the claim? A self published source, Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates. According to the Introduction [http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-research-associates/right.w.left] to the self published source, Berlet's allegation Brandt and his organization were aligned with Holocaust deniers first appeared two months earlier in September of 1991 in an ''extremist'' publication, the Marxist-Leninist ''Guardian''. [http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/berlet_articles.html] The ''Guardian'' newspaper, which at one time had a reporter, Wilfred Burchett, who participated in interrogations of American POWs in North Korean prison-of-war camps, is cited in a contemporaneous book from 1992 by the mainstream publisher ''Prometheus Books'' which is entitled, ''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America'', by John George, Laird Wilcox, ISBN 1-57392-058-4, as an extremist publication. See Chapter 9, pgs. 125-131. [http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp]

Added to all these violations of Official Wikipedia Policy is this event, Berlet citing himself and personally inserting potentially libelous and defamatory material from a questionable and self-published source into an article of a living person and fellow registered user. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921]

Jimbo Wales echoed SlimVirgin's view that Brandt was not a "credible source", and told ''Editor & Publisher'',
:"I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all." [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html]

After possible malicious intent of slander was being publicly discussed surrounding the events which lead to the creation of Brandt's entry, Wales comments to ''Editor & Publisher'' were removed from Brandt's bio under the "tabloid clause" of Reliable Sources. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=prev&oldid=104935334]

Meantime, numerous Wikipedia Administrators have been caught in the crossfire of a drive-by smear against Brandt in an old leftist sectarian dispute none of them know anything about.

==Sinbad Hoax==
On March 16, wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.

==Rutgers-Ivy League Hoax==
A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."<ref>Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.</ref>

==Barbara Bauer Vs. Wikimedia Foundation==
Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a "bloody disgrace".<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html</ref>

==Jimmy Wales' Denial that Larry Sanger was a Co-Founder==

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html
</ref> But the Associate Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:<ref>''id.''</ref>

:"When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added.

:"I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales "has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005."<ref>''id.''</ref>

==GFDL License Issue==
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Brian+Peppers</ref> without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Not only that, but the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by you to those of the GFDL license.<ref>http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF%27DL</ref><ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1</ref>

==References==
<references />

==External Links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikitruth.info/ Wikitruth]
*[http://www.citizendium.com Citizendium(Beta)]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]

[[Category:Wiki]]

Wikipedia

2007-03-31T22:17:38Z

Lilelu10: /* False Claim About Brent Bozell */

'''Wikipedia''' is an online [[encyclopedia]] established by [[Jimbo Wales]] (with substantial help in the beginning from [[Larry Sanger]]) on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref>, including over 1,600,000 articles in the English version. [[Conservapedia]] uses the wiki program made popular by Wikipedia. Content on Wikipedia is free-content under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), and anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|[http://www.wikipedia.org Multilingual Wikipedia home page]]]

Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis Incorporated, a search portal funded by Jimbo Wales.<ref>The Bomis portal has been criticized as "pornographic"</ref> Then in 2003, Jimbo Wales created the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation with himself as board president, to oversee the day-to-day operation of Wikipedia.

==Seigenthaler Hoax and Reaction of Wikipedia Editors==
In May 2005, an anonymous user created a Wikipedia article on John Seigenthaler Sr, a journalist and an assistant to former attorney general Robert F. Kennedy that stated:<blockquote>
John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven.
</blockquote>
and
<blockquote>
John Seigenthaler moved to the Soviet Union in 1971, and returned to the United States in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter.
</blockquote>
In September 2005, a friend of Seigenthaler's discovered the Wikipedia entry and alerted Seigenthaler, whom then contacted the Wikimedia foundation to have the article corrected, however the false biography had remained on Wikipedia for many months.
Wikipedia critic Daniel Brandt later discovered the prepetrator of the prank was Brian Chase, an acquaintance of Seigenthaler Sr.<ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref> John Seigenthaler Sr later published an article in ''USA Today'' on the whole affair.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>

Instead of being apologetic, Wikipedia editors criticized Seigenthaler afterwards on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly complaining of the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
:"Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."

The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy" and finally downgraded in its stable version to "incident". Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia" <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler%2C_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrived 23 March 2007.</ref> becaue it catapulted it <ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref> from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites, and gave it its first substantial publicity outside America.

==Essjay Scandal==
In January 2007, Wikipedia critic Daniel Brandt discovered that a prominent Wikipedia administrator, bureaucrat and arbitrator nicknamed Essjay has lied <ref>[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/essjay.html Essjay/Archive/52 recovered by Brandt for posterity]</ref> on Wikipedia and in phone interviews with ''The New Yorker'' magazine about his age, job, background, and academic credentials<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm</ref>. Essjay, who later identified himself as Ryan Jordan and who was an employee at Wikia Inc. funded by Jimbo Wales, had claimed to be a 40 year old homosexual, holding doctoral degrees in theology and canon law and is a tenured professor at a private university; but he was in fact a 24 years old community college dropout [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=22351] from Kentucky. This fraud was reported by ABC, BBC and many other major news organizations. Jimbo Wales upon learning of this incident, stated: "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it."<ref>http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact</ref>

The first public notice occured on Wikipedia Review, a critic's forum frequented by Brandt and several other prominent Wikipedians, including many who have been blocked from editing Wikipedia. Brandt pointed out as early as July 2006 [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=12701] that "something... doesn't add up" regarding Essjay's claim of being a college professor despite editing Wikipedia as much as 16 hours per day. One of the site's administrators posted on Jan. 11, 2007 regarding Essjay's hiring by Wikia after noticing that Jordan's "Essjay" account on Uncyclopedia (a Wikia-owned site) had been changed to include the "Staff" reference, normally given only to paid Wikia employees. The "Essjay" user page on Wikia had been posted, along with the name "Ryan Jordan," on Jan. 7, 2007 - with no explanation given for why Essjay would leave a tenured faculty position to work as a Community Manager for Wikia. The situation quickly became the subject of increasing speculation by the Wikipedia Review forum members, of whom Brandt was the most skeptical.

Later, the same administrator posted further details [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=20992] of discrepancies between Jordan's Wikia user page and his Wikipedia user page on January 19th, after Jordan added still more personal-background information to his Wikia user page that bore little similarity to the credentials he had claimed on Wikipedia since April of 2005.

==Daniel Brandt controversy==
The Daniel Brandt biographical entry was created by SlimVirgin on 28 September 2005 so that the subsection of criticism could be removed from the Chip Berlet mainspace biography. On two occasions, once prior and once after, SlimVirgin stated she did not consider Daniel Brandt a credible source. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554] In August 2005 SlimVirgin and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rangerdude Rangerdude] discussed the use of "scholarly" material cited to Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates (PRA) on the Roots of Anti-Semitism talk page and had this exchange:

:"PRA is not the kind of organization any of our guidelines is trying to stop us from using, and I'm certain of this because I've been involved in drafting a lot of the information about sources and original research....PRA is a research group and Berlet is a published journalist and author. ...WP:NOR#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication? says: ''"A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable". For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in a '''Socialist Workers' Party''' magazine to publish a statement about President Bush being gay."'' This clearly doesn't have in mind the type of research group Chip works for. You may find PRA extreme, but it's not a political or religious group, party, or movement.--SlimVirgin 07:12, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude only moments before debunked Berlet's scholarly credentials, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20212920&oldid=20187928] cited WP:RS on using extreme websites, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=prev&oldid=20246130] and then rejoined,
:"Curiously your example of the '''Socialist Worker's Party''' does little to help your case as Mr. Berlet's own biography proudly states that he has worked on behalf of this very same extremist group! --Rangerdude 07:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin then changed Official Wikipedia Reliable Sources Policy to make Berlet appear mainstream and not an extremist. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Workshop#Request_of_finding_for_ex_post_facto_policy_changes]

Next an old dormant dispute between Brandt and Berlet from a decade and half ago was reignited. The two worked together for many years, but had a falling out in 1991; Brandt was quoted as an anonymous critic from a ''FrontPage magazine.com'' citation in Berlet's wiki entry, with these words,

:“Reviewing one of Berlet’s screeds, one leftist writer mentions Berlet’s “crusade” against Progressives who stray from Berlet's ideological fever swamps by working with non-leftist groups. In a fascinating conclusion, the leftist commentator warns that Berlet “may try to undermine your work and isolate you.” [http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10352]

Berlet expressed displeasure at the criticism and publicly named the "leftist writer";
:This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt, who I criticized because he was urging people on the left to read the anti-Semitic ''Spotlight'' newspaper (at the time published by Holocaust denier Willis Carto.) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21]

Berlet wanted the criticism of him and his organization removed. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_Research_Associates#Fairness_and_Balance] On the same day the Daniel Brandt biography was created to cast Brandt and his organization as extremist using a guilt by association smear of being aligned with Holocaust denial. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Information_Research#_note-0] Who was the source of the claim? A self published source, Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates. According to the Introduction [http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-research-associates/right.w.left] to the self published source, Berlet's allegation Brandt and his organization were aligned with Holocaust deniers first appeared two months earlier in September of 1991 in an ''extremist'' publication, the Marxist-Leninist ''Guardian''. [http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/berlet_articles.html] The ''Guardian'' newspaper, which at one time had a reporter, Wilfred Burchett, who participated in interrogations of American POWs in North Korean prison-of-war camps, is cited in a contemporaneous book from 1992 by the mainstream publisher ''Prometheus Books'' which is entitled, ''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America'', by John George, Laird Wilcox, ISBN 1-57392-058-4, as an extremist publication. See Chapter 9, pgs. 125-131. [http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp]

Added to all these violations of Official Wikipedia Policy is this event, Berlet citing himself and personally inserting potentially libelous and defamatory material from a questionable and self-published source into an article of a living person and fellow registered user. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921]

Jimbo Wales echoed SlimVirgin's view that Brandt was not a "credible source", and told ''Editor & Publisher'',
:"I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all." [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html]

After possible malicious intent of slander was being publicly discussed surrounding the events which lead to the creation of Brandt's entry, Wales comments to ''Editor & Publisher'' were removed from Brandt's bio under the "tabloid clause" of Reliable Sources. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=prev&oldid=104935334]

Meantime, numerous Wikipedia Administrators have been caught in the crossfire of a drive-by smear against Brandt in an old leftist sectarian dispute none of them know anything about.

==Sinbad Hoax==
On March 16, wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.

==Rutgers-Ivy League Hoax==
A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."<ref>Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.</ref>

==Barbara Bauer Vs. Wikimedia Foundation==
Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a "bloody disgrace".<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html</ref>

==Jimmy Wales' Denial that Larry Sanger was a Co-Founder==

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html
</ref> But the Associate Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:<ref>''id.''</ref>

:"When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added.

:"I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales "has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005."<ref>''id.''</ref>

==GFDL License Issue==
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Brian+Peppers</ref> without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Not only that, but the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by you to those of the GFDL license.<ref>http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF%27DL</ref><ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1</ref>

==References==
<references />

==External Links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikitruth.info/ Wikitruth]
*[http://www.citizendium.com Citizendium(Beta)]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]

[[Category:Wiki]]

Evolutionism

2007-03-31T22:15:41Z

Lilelu10: /* References */

Evolutionism

2007-03-31T22:15:21Z

Lilelu10: /* Quotes */

Evolutionism

2007-03-31T22:14:57Z

Lilelu10: /* According to biblical Theistic Evolutionists (Old Earth) */

{{stub}}
'''Evolutionism''' is the belief in the theory that life on Earth is simply the result of random, natural processes (see [[Naturalism]], [[Biological evolution]]).<ref>"evolutionism." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 20 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionism>.</ref>

It ultimately attempts to explain the existence of humans by means other than divine creation. (Compare [[Creationism]].)

Therefore one who ''believes in or supports a theory of evolution''<ref>"evolutionist." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 21 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist>.</ref> would be referred to as an ''evolutionist''.

Evolutionism is the general sense of the word and encompasses ''any'' type of biological evolutionist. Broken down into two categories, "Evolutionism" and "Evolutionists" usually involve Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists (evolution without God) and Theistic Evolutionists (evolution with God). Those categories can be further broken down, but they are the main two.

The word is used differently in different circles of thought. Generally [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] use it as a reference to what they believe is the [[worldview]] or [[presupposition]] aspect of the scientific theory of evolution. The term is not necessarily used as a worldview unto itself, but is more based off of and is possibly an extension of a variety of other worldviews including [[Materialism]], [[Naturalism]]<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html CA601: Evolution and Naturalism] - TalkOrigins Archive</ref>, and [[Humanism]] in its broadest sense. Many that hold to the theory of evolution have been known to be [[Atheism|atheists]] as well, but this does not represent the entirety or whole.

:''"Evolutionism is a '''world-view''', which seeks to explain every aspect of this world in which we live. It encompasses a wide variety of topics, from astronomy to chemistry to biology. At its core, it teaches that there were different stages in the evolution of our universe..."''<ref>[http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism.htm Evolutionism - AllAboutPhilosophy] - Accessed on March 22, 2007.</ref>

==Theistic Evolution==
[[Theistic Evolution|Theistic Evolutionists]] believe that God created the universe and did not intervene directly in the evolutionary process. In general, theistic evolutionists accept the

==Foundational question/starting point==
All the viewpoints take a ''step of faith'' as some might refer to it. In other words, there is a common starting point or foundational question (it's a God-related question) that each one asks, and then forms their conclusions around.

===According to biblical Creationists (Young Earth)===
:<code>'''God exists (worldview) > Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact" > Thus science is altered based on the "God exists" idea ''Creationism'' comes before the ''Scientific Theory of Creation''. The theory is based on the worldview.'''</code>

===According to Atheistic Evolutionists===
Some proponents of the scientific theory of evolution reject the idea of a philosophy or worldview that guides their conclusions in scientific experimentation.
:<code>'''There is no God (worldview) > Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact" > Thus science is altered based on the "no God" idea ''Evolutionism'' comes before the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The theory is based on the worldview.'''</code>

===Comparison===
The various viewpoints can be compared in general ways as they all have some sort of starting point. The general Creationist starting point is God, which then all the universe is based on including that of science. Some ''Theistic Evolutionists'' hold to a similar God idea, yet emphasize a somewhat secondary origin<ref>Some Theistic Evolutionists believe that God created the universe and yet He is no longer involved in it. Therefore "secondary origin" is referring to the idea that God is the origin of the universe, but not necessarily ''You and Me''.</ref> in the evolutionary process. Atheistic evolutionists say that we must prove God by science, therefore their intellectual starting point is science itself.

==Controversy==
===Offensive Terminology===
Some Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists say that the term ''Evolutionism'' is simply a false Creationist perception, or pejorative assertion that science represents merely another religion. They disagree that the theory of evolution is based on a [[philosophy]] or [[worldview]]. They say that the perception finds no grounding in reality, other than as a rhetorical dramatization. However, according to creationists, this disagreement arises from a misunderstanding of terms. Biblical [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] hold both terms in philosophically equal light, up to a certain point. They would say that the term "Evolutionism" has the same or very similar meaning to "Creationism" as it relates to a supposed philosophical/foundational starting point or question (does God exist?). They say the term "Evolutionism" refers to a subset of a combination of worldviews, while the scientific theory of evolution is the result of the ''Evolutionist'' presupposition. In other words, they say that Evolutionism is the collective worldview behind the scientific theory of evolution. However, that's where the similarities end with biblical Young Earth Creationism.

===Religion and Evolutionism===
Some Creationists point out that they see various religious aspects, not in the theory of evolution itself (although they don't exclude that necessarily), but in the Evolutionists themselves. Some will say how Evolutionists have a ''religious fervor'' over what Creationists believe is false science. Some Evolutionists have historically misunderstood this for Creationists labeling science itself as a religion. M. Green, a Creationist, put it this way in his ''Faith of Darwinism'' (emphasis added).

:''"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with '''religious fervor''', and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." <ref name="mgreen" />''

Evolution has been a recent source of controversy in the [[United States]]{{fact}}. Some prominent Americans seriously question evolution{{fact}}, based on a feeling that it conflicts with religious beliefs. However, according to Evolutionists, at least one aspect of religion and evolution is not mutually exclusive. Some deeply religious evolutionists believe that God set evolution into effect, which is no detraction to His majesty. This is referring to the theory of [[Theistic Evolution]].

===Biblical Young Earth Creationist's problem with a Biblical Old Earth===

==Quotes==
'''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes'''<ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a Religion?] - Northwest Creation Network</ref>:
*''"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or faith?" <ref>L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pp. x, xi (1971 edition)</ref>''
*''"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith." <ref>J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p95.</ref>''
*''"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator." <ref>R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.</ref>''
*''"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power." <ref>T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).</ref>''
*''"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." <ref name="mgreen">M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November (1959), p49.</ref>''
'''''Evolutionism does not involve faith'' quotes''':
*''The concept of faith does not exist in other major religions''<ref>A. Schlafly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&oldid=12708]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Creationism]]
*[[Faith]]
*[[Humanism]]
*[[Naturalistic religions]]
*[[Religion]]
*[[Theism]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
'''Notes'''
:'''''Affirmative''' websites that are pro-theory of evolution.''
:'''''Critical''' websites that hold the position that the scientific theory of evolution requires faith and belief just like any other religious system.''

{| class="wikitable" width="100%"
! Affirmative !! Critical
|-
| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''TalkOrigins'''
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html CA612: Evolution requiring faith]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html CA610: Evolution religious]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html Evolution and Philosophy: Metaphysics]
'''EvoWiki'''
*[http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview]
| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''DrDino'''
* [http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=25 Evolution Is Based On Modern Myths]
'''Creationists.org'''
* [http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html Evolution is a Religion]
'''Northwest Creation Network'''
* [http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a religion?]
'''Answers in Genesis'''
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i4/religion.asp Evolution as religion]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0930religion.asp The Religion of Evolution]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter2.asp Evolution is Religion]
'''CreationWiki'''
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism Evolution requires as much faith as creationism] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion Evolution is a religion] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
'''Institute for Creation Research'''
* [http://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution is Religion, not Science (1)], [http://www.icr.org/article/455/ (2)]
|}
===Other===
'''Uses of the term ''Evolutionism'' on the Internet'''
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Northwest Creation Network]
*[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Evolutionism&oldid=74633 CreationWiki]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolutionism&oldid=115346043 Wikipedia]

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Materialism]]
[[Category:Naturalism]]
[[Category:Humanism]]

Evolutionism

2007-03-31T22:14:18Z

Lilelu10: /* Theistic Evolution */

{{stub}}
'''Evolutionism''' is the belief in the theory that life on Earth is simply the result of random, natural processes (see [[Naturalism]], [[Biological evolution]]).<ref>"evolutionism." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 20 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionism>.</ref>

It ultimately attempts to explain the existence of humans by means other than divine creation. (Compare [[Creationism]].)

Therefore one who ''believes in or supports a theory of evolution''<ref>"evolutionist." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 21 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist>.</ref> would be referred to as an ''evolutionist''.

Evolutionism is the general sense of the word and encompasses ''any'' type of biological evolutionist. Broken down into two categories, "Evolutionism" and "Evolutionists" usually involve Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists (evolution without God) and Theistic Evolutionists (evolution with God). Those categories can be further broken down, but they are the main two.

The word is used differently in different circles of thought. Generally [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] use it as a reference to what they believe is the [[worldview]] or [[presupposition]] aspect of the scientific theory of evolution. The term is not necessarily used as a worldview unto itself, but is more based off of and is possibly an extension of a variety of other worldviews including [[Materialism]], [[Naturalism]]<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html CA601: Evolution and Naturalism] - TalkOrigins Archive</ref>, and [[Humanism]] in its broadest sense. Many that hold to the theory of evolution have been known to be [[Atheism|atheists]] as well, but this does not represent the entirety or whole.

:''"Evolutionism is a '''world-view''', which seeks to explain every aspect of this world in which we live. It encompasses a wide variety of topics, from astronomy to chemistry to biology. At its core, it teaches that there were different stages in the evolution of our universe..."''<ref>[http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism.htm Evolutionism - AllAboutPhilosophy] - Accessed on March 22, 2007.</ref>

==Theistic Evolution==
[[Theistic Evolution|Theistic Evolutionists]] believe that God created the universe and did not intervene directly in the evolutionary process. In general, theistic evolutionists accept the

==Foundational question/starting point==
All the viewpoints take a ''step of faith'' as some might refer to it. In other words, there is a common starting point or foundational question (it's a God-related question) that each one asks, and then forms their conclusions around.

===According to biblical Creationists (Young Earth)===
:<code>'''God exists (worldview) > Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact" > Thus science is altered based on the "God exists" idea ''Creationism'' comes before the ''Scientific Theory of Creation''. The theory is based on the worldview.'''</code>

===According to biblical Theistic Evolutionists (Old Earth)===
There is disagreement among Theistic Evolutionists, as not all hold that God is not involved presently in His creation.

'''Impersonal Evolutionist God'''
:<code>'''There is no personal/involved God (worldview) > Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact" > Thus science is altered based on the "no personal God" idea ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes before the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The theory is based on the worldview.'''</code>
'''Personal Evolutionist God'''
:<code>'''There is a personal/involved God (worldview) > Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact" > Thus science is altered based on the "personal God" idea ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes before the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The theory is based on the worldview.'''</code>

===According to Atheistic Evolutionists===
Some proponents of the scientific theory of evolution reject the idea of a philosophy or worldview that guides their conclusions in scientific experimentation.
:<code>'''There is no God (worldview) > Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact" > Thus science is altered based on the "no God" idea ''Evolutionism'' comes before the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The theory is based on the worldview.'''</code>

===Comparison===
The various viewpoints can be compared in general ways as they all have some sort of starting point. The general Creationist starting point is God, which then all the universe is based on including that of science. Some ''Theistic Evolutionists'' hold to a similar God idea, yet emphasize a somewhat secondary origin<ref>Some Theistic Evolutionists believe that God created the universe and yet He is no longer involved in it. Therefore "secondary origin" is referring to the idea that God is the origin of the universe, but not necessarily ''You and Me''.</ref> in the evolutionary process. Atheistic evolutionists say that we must prove God by science, therefore their intellectual starting point is science itself.

==Controversy==
===Offensive Terminology===
Some Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists say that the term ''Evolutionism'' is simply a false Creationist perception, or pejorative assertion that science represents merely another religion. They disagree that the theory of evolution is based on a [[philosophy]] or [[worldview]]. They say that the perception finds no grounding in reality, other than as a rhetorical dramatization. However, according to creationists, this disagreement arises from a misunderstanding of terms. Biblical [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] hold both terms in philosophically equal light, up to a certain point. They would say that the term "Evolutionism" has the same or very similar meaning to "Creationism" as it relates to a supposed philosophical/foundational starting point or question (does God exist?). They say the term "Evolutionism" refers to a subset of a combination of worldviews, while the scientific theory of evolution is the result of the ''Evolutionist'' presupposition. In other words, they say that Evolutionism is the collective worldview behind the scientific theory of evolution. However, that's where the similarities end with biblical Young Earth Creationism.

===Religion and Evolutionism===
Some Creationists point out that they see various religious aspects, not in the theory of evolution itself (although they don't exclude that necessarily), but in the Evolutionists themselves. Some will say how Evolutionists have a ''religious fervor'' over what Creationists believe is false science. Some Evolutionists have historically misunderstood this for Creationists labeling science itself as a religion. M. Green, a Creationist, put it this way in his ''Faith of Darwinism'' (emphasis added).

:''"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with '''religious fervor''', and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." <ref name="mgreen" />''

Evolution has been a recent source of controversy in the [[United States]]{{fact}}. Some prominent Americans seriously question evolution{{fact}}, based on a feeling that it conflicts with religious beliefs. However, according to Evolutionists, at least one aspect of religion and evolution is not mutually exclusive. Some deeply religious evolutionists believe that God set evolution into effect, which is no detraction to His majesty. This is referring to the theory of [[Theistic Evolution]].

===Biblical Young Earth Creationist's problem with a Biblical Old Earth===

==Quotes==
'''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes'''<ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a Religion?] - Northwest Creation Network</ref>:
*''"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or faith?" <ref>L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pp. x, xi (1971 edition)</ref>''
*''"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith." <ref>J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p95.</ref>''
*''"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator." <ref>R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.</ref>''
*''"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power." <ref>T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).</ref>''
*''"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." <ref name="mgreen">M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November (1959), p49.</ref>''
'''''Evolutionism does not involve faith'' quotes''':
*''The concept of faith does not exist in other major religions''<ref>A. Schlafly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&oldid=12708]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Creationism]]
*[[Faith]]
*[[Humanism]]
*[[Naturalistic religions]]
*[[Religion]]
*[[Theism]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
'''Notes'''
:'''''Affirmative''' websites that are pro-theory of evolution.''
:'''''Critical''' websites that hold the position that the scientific theory of evolution requires faith and belief just like any other religious system.''

{| class="wikitable" width="100%"
! Affirmative !! Critical
|-
| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''TalkOrigins'''
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html CA612: Evolution requiring faith]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html CA610: Evolution religious]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html Evolution and Philosophy: Metaphysics]
'''EvoWiki'''
*[http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview]
| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''DrDino'''
* [http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=25 Evolution Is Based On Modern Myths]
'''Creationists.org'''
* [http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html Evolution is a Religion]
'''Northwest Creation Network'''
* [http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a religion?]
'''Answers in Genesis'''
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i4/religion.asp Evolution as religion]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0930religion.asp The Religion of Evolution]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter2.asp Evolution is Religion]
'''CreationWiki'''
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism Evolution requires as much faith as creationism] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion Evolution is a religion] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
'''Institute for Creation Research'''
* [http://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution is Religion, not Science (1)], [http://www.icr.org/article/455/ (2)]
|}
===Other===
'''Uses of the term ''Evolutionism'' on the Internet'''
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Northwest Creation Network]
*[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Evolutionism&oldid=74633 CreationWiki]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolutionism&oldid=115346043 Wikipedia]

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Materialism]]
[[Category:Naturalism]]
[[Category:Humanism]]